Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Science is a religion.


Hermai

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

If you really want to know, I think it's because of their parents being Christian, that they're living in the bless and standards of morals held by their parents that have been passed down, but soon that will wear out if they don't hold it up themselves. 

That's hilarious.

None of my friends's parents were Christian, and knowing some of their grandparents well they weren't either. Face it - religion is no longer a cornerstone of society and does not prop up civilisation.

Sure there can be a place for it, and I have nothing against private belief and faith (as long as its kept well away from government and education), but it simply is not the basis of our morals as humans.

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

So, science isn't a religion,

*prints screen, frames on wall*

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

but you can make a religion in the name of science

Sure, but so what? There aren't any religions in the name of science, and science itself only functions by self-correcting when new evidence comes to light. This is the opposite to what religion does. Bottom line - science works, and is not based on religious faith.

Glad we can agree on this.

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

His religion does matter, because you're pretty much stealing from him, if you want to take his work, and erase the rest of his life from the credit.  You're pretty much refusing his reputation when you refuse Isaac Newton's religion.  You might as well just deny his whole life. 

You can work on Newtonian physics with no understanding of Christianity and still get someone to the moon. Therefore, what you have said above is totally wrong.

Also, you don't have to consider an individual's "entire life" to appreciate their work. Do you find out an actor's faith, dietary habits and sexual orientation before praising a movie? Of course you don't. You can take Newton's work on the strength of the work alone and still see him as a pivotal figure in science, you don't need to know what sort of god he worshiped.

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

ut, I don't think it's supposed to be a problem, it comes from what the scripture warns about denying the name of Jesus, so you deny his name, and you start to in effect deny most of Newton's life, then you'll run into problems admitting the whole validity of his work.

No you don't. If someone comes up with a scientifically valid body of work, its validity is not called into question if you don't know about that individual's faith - any more than it is affected by their sexuality, dietary habits etc.

Scientific progress is scientific progress, and it doesn't matter who is involved. Hitler could have written Principia Mathematica and it would still be valid.

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

But, I thought you already admitted there is some faith involved in science.  Because, faith is part of the human mind, and belief, so as long as humans are involved in science there is going to be faith involved in it.

Oh my god. How many other ways can I say it. Are you being willfully difficult here?

Science is not based on blind religious faith. And every day "faith" that people use as an underlying assumption to reality is not analogous to religious faith.

13 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

The point is that Isaac Newton was a believing Christian, and so many of you keep saying that Christians are unable to do anything scientific.

Please show me where we have said this. My grandpa was a Methodist preacher and Quaker, and he is where I got all my early scientific interest and knowledge from.

I have never uttered these words, and have never seen them uttered here. You are creating a strawman.

13 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

You might as well just take his work, and take his name out of history, because somewhere in his work you're going to run into a problem with him being Christian.

Who is having a problem with him being a Christian?? I said it was irrelevant to his discoveries, which it is. You were the one who brought his faith up.

13 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

So, these things were done while he was a Christian, and they are a Christian's laws.

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote the mathematical treatise Liber Algebræ et Almucabola, so I guess algebra is a Muslim's law. Do you give thanks to Allah every time you work out the interest you receive on your bank account? 

No, of course you don't.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If I go to a Calahari Bushman and ask him about quantum string theory, and I tell him that it is believed to be how the Universe works, is he going to know that for true, or is he going to have to trust me? Have faith in what he's been told?

The problem with talking about "faith" and "belief" when it comes to science is that it is too easy to do what our friend Opus has done and conflate all types of belief and faith together, and it also ignores the scientific method's self-checking process.

If someone tells you in isolation that a photon is massless, then you have to take their word for it. If they are Head of Photon Research at CERN then you perhaps have "faith" in them that they have the right information. But this isn't necessarily useful if it is not born out experimentally. Thousands upon thousands of experiments, models, theories and predictions performed by individual teams and people the world over confirm that the photon is indeed massless.

Therefore we don't need to have "faith" in this person's claim, it is not blind zealotry, or unquestioning belief - it is real.

Likewise in every day conduct, I have "faith" in my friends that they will maintain a certain relationship with me. I am not "worshiping them", and I am not "blindly believing" when they say they will meet me in the pub at 6pm - but I stil have faith they will be there.

Both these sorts of faith are very different to the one which says that Jesus will come back to earth in a blaze of trumpets and wipe sin away. You cannot experimentally verify this, and he has never done it before, so it truly is "blind faith". 

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

No. That kind of belief is really trust, and it is not belief in science but rather in the scientist.  We all trust our car mechanics, our doctors, our architects, our computer engineers, and, yes, our scientists. That does not mean that these professional and highly trained people practice some belief based voodoo in their respective disciplines. Science, engineering, medicine and arcitecture are not religions and do not involve religious belief on the part of their practitioners.

I think what you're getting at is to either separate the two when looking at accomplishments. I'm late to this party.

Let's say that if my doctor is Christian his faith should have no place in treating me, if he was attempting faith healing then that would be different. Because I came to him for his medical knowledge, not church attendance. If I butchered that then my bad it's too early for thinking.:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emma_Acid said:

That's hilarious.

None of my friends's parents were Christian, and knowing some of their grandparents well they weren't either. Face it - religion is no longer a cornerstone of society and does not prop up civilisation.

Sure there can be a place for it, and I have nothing against private belief and faith (as long as its kept well away from government and education), but it simply is not the basis of our morals as humans.

*prints screen, frames on wall*

Sure, but so what? There aren't any religions in the name of science, and science itself only functions by self-correcting when new evidence comes to light. This is the opposite to what religion does. Bottom line - science works, and is not based on religious faith.

Glad we can agree on this.

You can work on Newtonian physics with no understanding of Christianity and still get someone to the moon. Therefore, what you have said above is totally wrong.

Also, you don't have to consider an individual's "entire life" to appreciate their work. Do you find out an actor's faith, dietary habits and sexual orientation before praising a movie? Of course you don't. You can take Newton's work on the strength of the work alone and still see him as a pivotal figure in science, you don't need to know what sort of god he worshiped.

No you don't. If someone comes up with a scientifically valid body of work, its validity is not called into question if you don't know about that individual's faith - any more than it is affected by their sexuality, dietary habits etc.

Scientific progress is scientific progress, and it doesn't matter who is involved. Hitler could have written Principia Mathematica and it would still be valid.

Oh my god. How many other ways can I say it. Are you being willfully difficult here?

Science is not based on blind religious faith. And every day "faith" that people use as an underlying assumption to reality is not analogous to religious faith.

Please show me where we have said this. My grandpa was a Methodist preacher and Quaker, and he is where I got all my early scientific interest and knowledge from.

I have never uttered these words, and have never seen them uttered here. You are creating a strawman.

Who is having a problem with him being a Christian?? I said it was irrelevant to his discoveries, which it is. You were the one who brought his faith up.

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote the mathematical treatise Liber Algebræ et Almucabola, so I guess algebra is a Muslim's law. Do you give thanks to Allah every time you work out the interest you receive on your bank account? 

No, of course you don't.

The problem with talking about "faith" and "belief" when it comes to science is that it is too easy to do what our friend Opus has done and conflate all types of belief and faith together, and it also ignores the scientific method's self-checking process.

If someone tells you in isolation that a photon is massless, then you have to take their word for it. If they are Head of Photon Research at CERN then you perhaps have "faith" in them that they have the right information. But this isn't necessarily useful if it is not born out experimentally. Thousands upon thousands of experiments, models, theories and predictions performed by individual teams and people the world over confirm that the photon is indeed massless.

Therefore we don't need to have "faith" in this person's claim, it is not blind zealotry, or unquestioning belief - it is real.

Likewise in every day conduct, I have "faith" in my friends that they will maintain a certain relationship with me. I am not "worshiping them", and I am not "blindly believing" when they say they will meet me in the pub at 6pm - but I stil have faith they will be there.

Both these sorts of faith are very different to the one which says that Jesus will come back to earth in a blaze of trumpets and wipe sin away. You cannot experimentally verify this, and he has never done it before, so it truly is "blind faith". 

well, you're lying and stretching the truth all the time.

you don't know all your friend's parents, unless you're basically friendless.

despite how much you hate and want the religion abolished, i know your country is, and will always officially christian.

what you're pretty much saying is you want to cover up history, of european christianity, because you don't like the sound of it next to the dogma you have created for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

well, you're lying and stretching the truth all the time.

you don't know all your friend's parents, unless you're basically friendless.

despite how much you hate and want the religion abolished, i know your country is, and will always officially christian.

what you're pretty much saying is you want to cover up history, of european christianity, because you don't like the sound of it next to the dogma you have created for the future.

Ouch! Do you need a snickers bro?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

well, you're lying and stretching the truth all the time.

Give me one example.

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

you don't know all your friend's parents, unless you're basically friendless.

You have absolutely no idea what my social set up is or where I am from. Another strawman.

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

despite how much you hate and want the religion abolished

Yet another strawman. Show where I said this. I said I want separation of church and state. I do not want religion taught in science classes or faith involved in why we go to war.

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

i know your country is, and will always officially christian.

In name only. I know no one who is a practicing Christian, and the church plays absolutely no role in our lives.

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

what you're pretty much saying is you want to cover up history,

Never said this. Another strawman (the third in one post!). I said an individual's religion has nothing to do with their scientific achievements. And I put it to you again - do you thank Allah every time you do maths? No? HISTORICAL REVISIONIST!!!!

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

because you don't like the sound of it next to the dogma you have created for the future.

Meaningless. And once again, you are showing your true colours by claiming that science and atheism is "dogmatic". Take a look in the mirror buddy.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

The problem with talking about "faith" and "belief" when it comes to science is that it is too easy to do what our friend Opus has done and conflate all types of belief and faith together, and it also ignores the scientific method's self-checking process.

If someone tells you in isolation that a photon is massless, then you have to take their word for it. If they are Head of Photon Research at CERN then you perhaps have "faith" in them that they have the right information. But this is meaningless if it is not born out experimentally. Thousands upon thousands of experiments, models, theories and predictions performed by individual teams and people the world over confirm that the photon is indeed massless.

Therefore we don't need to have "faith" in this person's claim, it is not blind zealotry, or unquestioning belief - it is real.

Likewise in every day conduct, I have "faith" in my friends that they will maintain a certain relationship with me. I am not "worshiping them", and I am not "blindly believing" when they say they will meet me in the pub at 6pm - but I stil have faith they will be there.

Both these sorts of faith are very different to the one which says that Jesus will come back to earth in a blaze of trumpets and wipe sin away. You cannot experimentally verify this, and he has never done it before, so it truly is "blind faith". 

Ah... So the bushman is not having faith in science, but in the person telling him something. He has no idea what science is, so he can't have faith in it. Or, if you explain that science is facts and process, he'd agree that it is common sense and not in need of believing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

No. That kind of belief is really trust, and it is not belief in science but rather in the scientist.  We all trust our car mechanics, our doctors, our architects, our computer engineers, and, yes, our scientists. That does not mean that these professional and highly trained people practice some belief based voodoo in their respective disciplines. Science, engineering, medicine and arcitecture are not religions and do not involve religious belief on the part of their practitioners.

That is a good point between "faith" and "trust". I think it is more correct to say that humans trust one another, rather then have faith in one another. Both are correct usage of the word, however, like you said, faith in this context does not involve religious belief in an individual, but a personal trust in an individual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That is a good point between "faith" and "trust". I think it is more correct to say that humans trust one another, rather then have faith in one another. Both are correct usage of the word, however, like you said, faith in this context does not involve religious belief in an individual, but a personal trust in an individual. 

Personal trust IS faith in God.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Personal trust IS faith in God.

 

 

No, because I know that my friends exist. You cannot tangibly objectively claim the same of God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, etc - so a huge part of the faith is placed right there.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

No, because I know that my friends exist. You cannot tangibly objectively claim the same of God

Why not?

How do you know that I don't know that God is my Father and that we have a personal relationship?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Why not?

How do you know that I don't know that God is my Father and that we have a personal relationship?

Because the concept of God is unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven (or unproven). Any belief in God is an expression of pure faith. You cannot claim that God is objectively real, and certainly not by saying "I know he is" because that is not objective.

I have no problem with religion until its followers start asserting that it is some clearly proven, objective truth. No, the earth going around the sun is a clearly proven objective truth. Belief in God, Allah, whatever, is faith.

Can you not see how this conversation is totally twisted - with you guys trying to assert that God is undeniably real and science built in faith? Its unbelievable. Faith is faith, stick to it and let science carry on improving the world and we'll all be fine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about science.

I don't care about objective proof for you. Obviously, that's not how it works. But the truths of science do work that way. That shouldn't be a problem. 

I have a personal relationship with my Father in heaven because it's desired by both of us. And we let each other know what our desires are 24/7

And we stick to that.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.